We have located links that may give you full text access.
Prone Positioning in Patients With COVID-19 and Non-COVID-19 Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.
Critical Care Nurse 2023 December 1
BACKGROUND: Patients critically ill with COVID-19 develop acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and may undergo prone positioning.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of prone positioning on oxygenation, intensive care unit length of stay, and intubation days in patients with COVID-19 ARDS and patients with non-COVID-19 ARDS.
METHODS: A convenience sample of intubated patients with COVID-19 and moderate to severe ARDS (per Berlin criteria) was compared with historical data from a retrospective, descriptive medical record review of patients with non-COVID-19 ARDS. The historical comparison group was age and sex matched.
RESULTS: Differences in Po2 to fraction of inspired oxygen ratios between the COVID-19 ARDS group (n = 41) and the non-COVID-19 ARDS group (n = 6) during the first 7 days of prone positioning were significant at the end of prone positioning on day 1 (P = .01), day 3 (P = .04), and day 4 (P = .04). Wilcoxon signed-rank tests showed that prone positioning had a positive impact on Po2 to fraction of inspired oxygen ratios from day 1 through day 6 in the COVID-19 ARDS group and on day 2 in the non-COVID-19 ARDS group.
CONCLUSION: This retrospective review found greater improvement in oxygenation in the COVID-19 ARDS group than in the non-COVID-19 ARDS group. This finding may be attributed to the assertive prone positioning protocol during the pandemic and teams whose skills and training were likely enhanced by the pandemic demand. Prone positioning did not affect intensive care unit length of stay or intubation days in either group.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of prone positioning on oxygenation, intensive care unit length of stay, and intubation days in patients with COVID-19 ARDS and patients with non-COVID-19 ARDS.
METHODS: A convenience sample of intubated patients with COVID-19 and moderate to severe ARDS (per Berlin criteria) was compared with historical data from a retrospective, descriptive medical record review of patients with non-COVID-19 ARDS. The historical comparison group was age and sex matched.
RESULTS: Differences in Po2 to fraction of inspired oxygen ratios between the COVID-19 ARDS group (n = 41) and the non-COVID-19 ARDS group (n = 6) during the first 7 days of prone positioning were significant at the end of prone positioning on day 1 (P = .01), day 3 (P = .04), and day 4 (P = .04). Wilcoxon signed-rank tests showed that prone positioning had a positive impact on Po2 to fraction of inspired oxygen ratios from day 1 through day 6 in the COVID-19 ARDS group and on day 2 in the non-COVID-19 ARDS group.
CONCLUSION: This retrospective review found greater improvement in oxygenation in the COVID-19 ARDS group than in the non-COVID-19 ARDS group. This finding may be attributed to the assertive prone positioning protocol during the pandemic and teams whose skills and training were likely enhanced by the pandemic demand. Prone positioning did not affect intensive care unit length of stay or intubation days in either group.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2025 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app